Transactional vs morality driven ... and which are you?
When I brought this topic to the group, I realized that the choice between morality and transactions is not actually binary, as you will soon see. With few exceptions, none of us could be defined strictly as either/or and most human interaction is based in both. First, let's focus on some more precise definitions so that we can work with clarity.
Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
The definition of transactional is something related to a process or other action. An example of transactional is the process to negotiate a contract between two people.
In America, these have become some very important understandings of interactions during a time of great potential for change, either to the beneficial or to the destructive. That is coupled with extraordinary need brought on by a pandemic coupled with environmental crisis and very real threats to our democratic system.
Just as a fire is accelerated by gasoline, our social flames have been vastly accelerated by one Donald John Trump! The following quote was in a HuffPost article this morning:
"Trump has been guided by a tried and tested method of manipulating 'weak-minded people' to his own advantage — by establishing a common enemy, telling simple stories 'with no regard for the truth,' attacking democratic institutions and the media, and cultivating a cult of personality."
One of the most common terms applied to Trump in analyses of his behavior is to describe him as someone virtually entirely transactional in his view of the world. There is no moral dimension at all, for his actions he views as neither right nor wrong, but merely in terms of benefit or detriment to himself. It is paired perfectly with his extreme narcissism. Unfortunately, many of his followers have somehow fallen under his spell (and they are likely to vote) and many others are terrified of the idea of defying him (they who want to receive said votes) and still others have confused conservative principles with loyalty to party. If Republicans are for Trump out of dalliance or fear, then he must by definition be conservative, dedicated to fiscal balance, believing in the wealthy creating opportunity for the poorer, representing strong family values and having total reverence to God, among others. And, they've shown a miraculous capacity to ignore what is actually right in front of them.
So, why would someone accept such obvious deception? Trump is on public record as uttering over 30,000 lies during his Presidency. It's because they are ultimately driven by ideas of right and wrong in stark, inflexible terms. To them, Liberal is another word for iniquity. Gay is most decidedly not OK, because ancient texts they believe undistorted from the divine say it is an abomination. They believe that the Caucasian race is not just superior, the paintings of their savior show him blue eyed and blonde. The rich deserve all their wealth because they actually earned every bit of it. It goes on and on. But, the key to it is understanding that they are driven by the idea that this is right!
In truth, it makes them prey to the transactional rich. They will stay with a belief even to their detriment. The rich will stay with their self benefiting transactions, even if they are violations of people or the world. Now, not all rich are this way and not all working class are naïve suckers, but the scales are often tipped on the social aggregate. Neither are many of our essential institutions one dimensional.
Laws and law enforcement are essential in our understanding of the pathway to justice here. Laws themselves are social contracts, the ultimate in transactional agreement. But, the creation of those laws are not just transactional, nor are their interpretations by judges and juries. A sense of justice requires a sense of right and wrong. It applies in judgments in the courtroom and it applies in the judgments leading to actions on the street. Ultimately, the disposition of justice is a transaction, the understanding of whether it is actually just is moral.
Military engagements, treaties, negotiations and settlements are all simply the same thing expanded to the international stage. Diplomacy elevated to statesmanship is the art of blending the transactional with the moral in elegant motion. War is its failure. Subjugation is its failure. Environmental destruction is its failure.
Humanity succeeds and fails in turn and the outcome of today's volatility will also certainly be a mix of success and failure. Understanding of the dance of transactions and morality, the structural underpinnings of our efforts, is the responsibility of every individual in every national setting. It is the difference between supporting the views of a Dwight Eisenhower or the views of a Donald Trump. It is the difference between seeking a just world or naked power over others.
Let me step down from my soapbox now and encourage you to see what my fellow blog mates make of this topic at:
For the sake of this discussion, we will agree that the sky is green with pink stars and sun. That is how much sense transactional makes when discussing leadership to me. I prefer to call a spade a spade - DJY is a pathological liar and amoral sociopath, and I really find it almost pointless to discuss him in any other terms. That said, transactional leaders are simply manipulators who offer little creativity in anything they do and also find it difficult to tackle complexities. They work well with folks motivated by money unless they are in the military or lawenforcement.
ReplyDeleteRegarding blond haired, blue eyed Jesus, a notorious brain surgeon in the previous administration has a painting of Jesus with his own face as Jesus. Guess that is why he thought his office furniture should be so expensive.
Your favorite topic, huh? LMAO
DeleteThe topic i fine,I merely suggestede the wheel does not have to be reinvented. I have disliked the transactionlabel since I started hearing itoncable news.
DeleteI find it to accurately describe one level of understanding. He is all that you said.
DeleteThere are always two sides to any story. The "manipulating weak minded people" falls into that great statement made by another POTUS Bush. Soft bigotry of low expectations. Such a sweeping statement simply makes me wonder why if so many weak minded people populate your great country, it elected Trump and almost reelected him.
ReplyDeleteYour comment confuses me a little. Are you saying electing Trump is a statement of weak or strong mindedness?
DeleteIf you had grown up where I did, it would be a very clear situation to you. The white people of the heartland feel unfairly blamed. That makes it easy for Trump to be their champion.
That perhaps is my misunderstanding. If they are weak minded and feel unfairly blamed, why has democracy worked so far?
DeleteI think perhaps my emphasis on weak minded is misplaced. Humanity is always populated by the narrow minded and rigid and their refrain is usually morality based. They feel "right" in that narrow moral view that in a zero sum way, someone else must be "wrong." They are actually more vulnerable than weak and it is a spectrum in which all of us share those qualities to varying degrees.
DeleteDemocracy is not a chrome and steel edifice, sterile and pristine. It's heart and process is organic, ever evolving. I climb a mountain, my body aches, but unless I fall off,I am stronger in body and spirit tomorrow. The same with democracy.
America has grown by being oh so human in its heartbeat, struggling with it's limits, growing in the process. It can fail, but I don't think it will. What the news doesn't emphasize is the 84 million who showed up to vote for another way than the Trump way. We will probably come out of this battered and sore, but it is no different than any other challenge in our growth.